If you're leaving in 25 minutes, this is an easy fold.

Let's give him a range of AQs,A4s,KQs,K4s,QTs+,64s,54s,43s,AQo,A4o,KQo,QJo.

This is a very pessimistic, narrow range that assumes he's never bluffing. I personally think there's always a small chance of a bluff, and I think there Q10/Q9 might be in his range but 8o8 disagrees so I removed them (kept Q10 suited though).

Let's see what our expectation is of getting all in on the flop.

Tie = .2234*$31 = +$6.925
Win = .2515 * $167 = +$42.0005
Lose= = .5251 * -$93 = -$48.83

Total EV is -$.0907

Wow, so it's closer than I thought. Also notice the amount of chops is pretty high (22.34%). Anyway, at the very worse case scenario, that he never bluffs and has a narrow range (which includes only 3 hands we are currently beating), getting all in is almost neutral EV.

But what if there's some chance he's bluffing, or that his range includes more Q10 or Q9 hands? Then the decision is a clear stack off.

Raise a bit more preflop, then you have an easier no-brainer stack off on this same flop.

the suggestion that we should stack off here to find out how this guy is playing is so ridiculously horribad i can't even handle it. regardless of whether we're leaving soon or not LOL

even if your math is correct, this is a pointless analysis because the frequency with which he raises some of the hands in his range is different than others. (comes back to the concept of weighted ranges that you don't seem to understand)

Ok, one might argue that 4-X isn't in his range because it's a drawless board and he'd flat to slowplay it...Of course you're looking for any reason to fold, so you're going to reason that his range is all 4-X and we need to weight his Q-X range down.

he might slow play 4x sometimes, sure. you factor that in when you weight his range.

i'm not looking for reasons to fold, why would i be doing that? i decided we should fold based on how i would weight his range.

I agree. This is completely silly. We've got $31 invested when the effective stack to start this hand was $125 - we're supposed to simply hand this guy $94 now because we MIGHT be able to get at him later? What if we leave? What if he leaves? What if we don't have an opportunity to play a big pot with him? What if we do and he wins it?

Also why was there a paragraph long description of Villain 1? They're not even relevant in this hand. Even if they hadn't folded the flop, they wouldn't be relevant anyway, they'd have $35 left in 1/2 NL and we'd happily get it in against them with TPGK, there'd be nothing to discuss.

Good question. Included V1 for table dynamic, but didn't need such a long description...

Grunch: I call and fold to a shove on the turn. Even a ~$40ish bet on the turn I can find a fold because in that case he's slowjamming AQ or 4x. If he checks turn try to get to showdown. He's like never bluffing and is only jamming AQ or better.

Ok. So I suppose you fold everytime an unknown min raises you when you flop TP with second kicker?

Obviously there's no discussion once you have decided to play with such plan.

it depends a bit on the flop, possibly hero image, and a couple other things, but against an unknown... ya pretty much. you shouldn't be concerned by playing exploitably in a 1/2 game. it's correct to do so.

there is an overwhelming tendency for players at these stakes to flat your c-bet if they have say Q9 in a spot like this. thus a min-raise is usually indicative of a narrower range, which we fair poorly against with KQ.

So you're saying to fold to the flop raise, right? Then how do you explain my last post that showed if he never has weaker than Q10suited in his range, it's nearly neutral EV to stack off? Yeah yeah, "you don't understand weighted ranges yoda!". Do you even understand them? I've never even seen you do an EV calc. Anyway, weighting down some of his weaker Q-X hands like Q10 and QJ will not change that much.

Anyway, important thing is there's always a tiny chance of a bluff. Villain may read you for AK or something like 1010 and believe he can take you off the hand. It's a mistake to think, in every hand, "it's impossible he's ever bluffing.". This could sway our decision from fold flop to commit.

Pretty rare occurance, and since they're an unknown in your hypothetical, then they aren't exploiting us. Thus, yes, you can fold every time this rare occurence happens and be profitable in doing so. It would be very, very rare for someone to minraise worse than KQ on this board in a 3-way pot.

I've read all the posts, and have been thinking about this hand for awhile. I'm still surprised that some say this is a fold. You have an SPR of 3.4 in a three way pot. Sure, you are not crazy about the hand, but in this situation I would think you would be committed to it. The only hands you are behind are AA, KK, QQ, AQ, and 4x. Within that range, I'm discounting AA, KK, and QQ somewhat, because he didn't reraise. I'm also thinking that he's less likely to be calling OP's raise with 4x (except for A4s).

So, can he be betting something we beat? I think that a villain, especially a competent villain at that, could be putting us on a wide range raising out of the CO. I don't think he fears the c-bet either, he's expecting us to do that most of the time. If he called us with a PP, I could see him thinking he might be best on this dry board and is trying to find out. I've seen players do this with AK sometimes also. Plus, there is always some chance that he is trying a pure bluff as well. With a strong read, like a very tight player, or someone who would never raise a worse hand, the situation would be different, but in this situation, I'm having a hard time finding a fold.

My default thinking is that a low SPR + uncertainty = commitment. I'm really trying hard to understand if this thinking is wrong, and if so , why?